From: cannonr (cannonr@attbi.com)
Date: Tue Feb 18 2003 - 23:39:51 GMT-3
Chuck is very right. Don't make the mistake of deploying that many sites
with a single point of failure. It doesn't cost much to have an alternate
ATM circuit in another hub location and map 1 PVC to each of the two sites
when you compare it with the cost of having people down. I don't know about
you, but I can't think of many people in my organization that can work
without the network. Also, if you use redundant PVC's, you can add ISDN
backup to prevent the occasional remote circuit failure. It is not
realistic to use ISDN backup at 1000 remote sites when you have a single hub
because if your circuit fails, you would need 1,000 channels for backup. On
the other hand, if you have two hubs, you can very easily protect remote
failure with a hand-full of BRI's or a PRI at one of the hubs since it is
very unlikely that both of your hub circuits will fail.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Church" <ccie8776@rochester.rr.com>
To: "Aaron Woody" <awoody@columbus.rr.com>; <mohammed@sulafsolutions.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: OSPF for 400+ Locations
> Aaron,
>
> With as large as this is getting, you really want to do this right
from
> the start. Has the company given any thought to disaster recovery? With
a
> thousand remote sites, this can't be a small company, so a circuit loss at
> the main site could be horrific. Backup PVCs to another location are the
> norm for a network of this size. But it's nothing that OSPF can't handle.
> Just design it right, and maybe you'll get a big bonus for a good job!
>
> Chuck Church
> CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Aaron Woody" <awoody@columbus.rr.com>
> To: <mohammed@sulafsolutions.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 5:50 PM
> Subject: RE: OSPF for 400+ Locations
>
>
> > I just found out today they will be growing to 1000 sites and I will
still
> > have to design dial backup solution.
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mohammed Al-zubi [mailto:mohammed@sulafsolutions.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 3:40 AM
> > To: 'Aaron Woody'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: OSPF for 400+ Locations
> >
> >
> > Aaron,
> > I've seen similar configurations, specially at banks (ATMs running
> FR/OSPF).
> > to be honest, if there are no networks behind the spoke routers (I think
> > there are none because you were going to configure them as Totally
stubby)
> I
> > would just implement static routes, you would just have to put a default
> at
> > the remote sites, and 400 statics at the hub, its MUCH less work and
> > headache, and this way when you roll it out you have less configuration
to
> > deal with. If you still need these routes to appear in the OSPF domain
> > beyond the hub, then redistribute it back to OSPF at the hub with a
> summary
> > address, so 400 networks would show up in your site routing table as one
> > route, and you just simplified the configuration of 400 sites.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mohammed
> >
> > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> > Mohammed Al-Zubi
> > VP Professional Services
> > 24 Werner Ave. #21
> > Daly City, CA 94014
> > Tel: (650) 438-6384
> > Fax: (720) 293-4897
> > Email: mohammed@sulafsolutions.com
> > Web: www.sulafsolutions.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > Aaron Woody
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:21 PM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: OSPF for 400+ Locations
> >
> >
> > I have experience with OSPF but I am looking for suggestions on how to
> > implement OSPF in a Frame-Relay Hub/Spoke topology for 400+ locations.
> Each
> > location only needs to know about the host through a default. My first
> idea
> > is to have a separate area for each location and make it a totally
stubby
> > area. Is there a better way. My concern is that there will be 400+ areas
> in
> > the OSPF Database at the host. The host will be a Cisco 3745. The
remotes
> > will all be Cisco 1751.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> > [GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type application/ms-tnef which
> had
> > a name of winmail.dat]
> > .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:06:27 GMT-3